26-08-2013, 04:32 PM
Andrew McHarg Wrote:Perhaps the fairest method of proxy voting would be to have a standardised (unbiased) form that's sent to every member prior to a meeting, with a note explaining how it can be used to vote on particular motions/candidates. A copy of the candidates and their manifestos, along with any motions would also be sent. Responses are then returned to a designated person and cast at the AGM appropriately. After the AGM a list of who voted (and how they voted) is published to ensure clarity and transparency. With this method it's more likely that the motions/candidates which are most popular will be voted in, rather than the motions/candidates who had the most aggressive vote soliciting process.
even better the form is sent straight to the executive committee from the voter up to say three days before an AGM. That way the proxy would not be seen as being controlled by the person carrying the vote. Any vote for motions brought up unexpectedly (i.e. not on the form) would then be seen as an open vote which would be indicated as such on the form. The voting form of intent would be seen as discouraging blind open voting. To be honest how can be some one carrying a large number of proxy votes truly know how to vote on something unexpected such as what happened to the international director vote. I certainly had no idea what was going happen and I'm sure I wasn't alone there. If something like that happens again i'm afraid the best option is to trust the delgates who are there and are able to gauge what to do